theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I hereby induct Steersman into the Order of Analogical Antipathy.
Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Close, no cigar ...
Methinks it is Pluto which hasn't cleared its neighborhood of debris ...
Definition of planet - Wikipedia
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
FYI we do have a thread for trans issues:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If you make the bold claim that you can classify every object in the solar system, you have to be willing to back up your own claim.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
By whom? No memes.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Everything is either the sun or not.
Everything is either rounded by its own gravity or not.
Everything either is the sun, orbits the sun, orbits something that orbits the sun, or isn't part of the system.
Everything is either within one standard deviation of the statistical orbital plane of the system, or not.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its a CHART - based in fact, not a meme based in opinion. You cannot get around facts and evidence by pretending they haven't been presented to you... I have given you the source I used - you have chosen not to accept it. Its now up to you to fault the evidence presented. If you disagree with the evidence, its up to you to show why you disagree. So far, you've given us nothing but your opinions and crickets.
You're really not very good at this are you?
ETA: Here, I'll give you some hints and a primer...
Find, and provide a link to a reliable, science based source (no trans-gender apologist sites) that clearly states...
1. Those who suffer from Klinefelter syndrome are not male.
2. Those who suffer from De Chapelle Syndrome are not male.
3. Those who suffer from Swyer syndrome are not female.
When you fail to find the necessary sources you need for those, you can move on to fail at at the rest.
Oh, and just to head you off at the pass, despite the fact that you thought you found your gotcha moment (46 XY SRY+) on both sides of the CHART you neglected to understand why that is not the smoking gun you thought you found.
Changes in the androgen receptor gene in someone with 46 XY SRY+ can have two different outcomes...
1. Little or no sex rejection takes place, and the subject ends up male, but under masculinzed
2. Sex rejection takes place and the subject ends up female
This is my very simplified understanding. I expect that @Louden Wilde (who is an actual biologist) will correct me if I'm wrong, and/or will add any salient points.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The problem with devil's advocacy is that in the end the devil is evil and wrong.AGAIN
You cannot get around facts and evidence by pretending they haven't been presented to you.
I have given you the source I used - you have chosen not to accept it. Its now up to you to fault the evidence presented. If you disagree with the evidence, its up to you to show why you disagree.
So far, you've given us nothing but your opinions and crickets.
You're really not very good at this are you?
angrysoba
Philosophile
"I'll take false analogies for $100 please Alex" ...
And you call yourself an engineer?
Planet - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
They generally ARE "exactly the same", at least to the extent of being "in orbit around a star". After that they can have a great many traits -- size, orbits, intersections, etc. -- that are different.
In this case it really is just a bad analogy. Maybe even smartcooky realized it at the end of his post but bizarrely chose to hit "Post reply" anyway.
We've had threads on this forum where people have made fairly good arguments for why maybe the dwarf planets could be considered planets as well, but basically we just came up with the definition on a pretty ad hoc basis. What difference does it make if Pluto is a planet or not? Essentially none. This is not really the same with biological sex where there are clearly functional explanatory reasons for defining male and female, with a few individuals who are functionally intersex.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
How does that saying go? Facts don't care about your feelings?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
It's a meme put together by someone with no particular expertise in biology or sexual development, LACKING ANY REFERENCES.
Assertions aren't facts.
You used a meme with no scientific support; I have indeed chosen not to accept it without supporting links for each categorization.
I fault it as a goddamn meme with no scientific basis provided.
First, you have to actually present evidence rather than mere assertions.
Those who make claims must shoulder the burden of evidence; I did not make these claims.
Once again, if you want to make the claim that every individual is classifiable in terms of sex, you have to show your work.
Which intersex conditions did you put in which category and what scientific publication led you to do so?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Translation: You're handwaving evidence because it doesn't fit your pretermined conclusions.
Amen to that
Many if not most people don't have much of a clue how categories work, the reasons for them, and what are the criteria for membership. Scott Alexander had a decent article on it some years ago -- "Categories were made for Man, not man for categories". Long-winded and somewhat wide of the mark but still useful.
The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories
I. “Silliest internet atheist argument” is a hotly contested title, but I have a special place in my heart for the people who occasionally try to prove Biblical fallibility by pointing …
slatestarcodex.com
Exactly. Though the "functionally intersex" are actually "sexless". Which is what biologists Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, along with many other biologists, argue.
But many people -- including Kathleen Stock in her Material Girls -- argue that the sexes are "natural kinds":
Muhammad Ali Khalidi, Are sexes natural kinds? - PhilArchive
Asking whether the sexes are natural kinds amounts to asking whether the categories, female and male, identify real divisions in nature, like the distinctions between biological species, or whether they mark ...
philarchive.org
Of particular note is the use of "large and small gametes" as the defining and essential property -- reflected in Trump's EO and in standard biological definitions.
Big LoL. Your "feelings" seem to be limited to butthurt about the loss of "muh humanity" because that view is incompatible with the standard biological definitions for the sexes.
True. But it's a fact that assertions are made.
You're doing yeoman's work in holding smartcooky's and Emily's Cat's feet -- all four -- to the fire. But kind of think you're missing the point, that you really don't understand the scientific and logical principles involved.
For example, Euclid stipulated -- asserted -- that parallel lines never meet. That's one axiom of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, it's an axiom of biology that those who produce large or small reproductive cells -- AKA gametes -- are to be CALLED females and males, respectively.
He has to show the definition he and his meme-author are using. And show that it the one used by reputable biologists. Rots of ruck. And then show that his cases meet the criteria specified.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Can you expand on what you mean when you say an individual is "functionally intersex"? Please elaborate on what you think that encompasses.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
FYI, @daysgobygoby is an individual with a DSD. If memory serves, they are CAIS, but I'm not positive.
I get that you don't know that, and that's fine. But let's also be reasonable here. You're essentially using an inverted appeal to authority - you're outright rejecting information based on what you think about the source, with no consideration whatsoever for the accuracy of the information itself.
Everything in that chart can be independently verified. You can go look up information about every one of the listed conditions, and learn what makes them male or female in each case. But you don't want to bother with it, and it's much easier for you to just pretend its "a meme" and discard it entirely because it doesn't fit your pre-existing belief.
If you were acting with internal consistency... you would reject every single bit of information provided in this thread by anyone other than Louden Wilde, Rolfe, and Elaedith* - all of whom have actual training in biology and/or sexual development to be relevant to the discussion. That means you should reject any assertions made by YOU as well.
*Apologies if I've missed someone, please feel free to add yourself and reference any relevant expertise, including biology, evolutionary biology, medicine focused on sexual development, and veterinary science, or any other field that you believe should be considered. I count vets, because vets have to know a lot about sexual characteristics, reproductive systems, and behavior across a whole lot of species. And I've yet to run across a vet who claims to not be able to tell the difference between a male and a female bovine, or who claims that freemartin cattle are anything other than female.